Author
Topic: If all the particles in a body ceased to vibrate, would it cease to exist? (Read 7144 times)

And if I somehow "could" cause every single one of the atoms in that marble to "stop" vibrating.

would the marble, cease to exist ?

in a black hole, time stops, hence vibration stops.

and, if said object ceases to exist, could that be happening in black holes, solving the singularity problem ?

if the matter is reduced to its sub atomic particles, it could store almost limitless amounts of matter, not infinite, but if you consider all the matter in the universe does not take up too much space, so to speak, it seems infinite.

The marble would not cease to exist. There are two conditions associated with particles as they cool down to the lowest temperatures possible and minimise their vibrations

Firstly there are particles with no net "spin" That is they do not have any residual internal angular momentum. These are called bosons because they obey what is known as Bose-Einstein statistics as they change their temperature. they do cool down and stop moving but when they do stop moving groups of the clump together and become composite entities called a bose-einstein condensation where the individual particles have lost their identity ant it is only the whole lump that ahas effectively become a bigger particle.

Secondly there are particles with some residual spin angular momentum. These cannot condense into a solid mass. Think of trying to put a load of perpetually spinning balls in a box they would always be hitting each other and bouncing off faster. Fermions always retain some residual vibration and are always different from each other that is unless they link together in pairs and effectively become bosons when they can all group together. This is the process that causes wierd properties like superconductivity and superfluidity to develop in materials when they are very cold.

The "singularity" inside a black hole is something very different. It is just a mathematical concept like an infinitely thin straight line or a mathematical point. in the physical world all real lines and points have a finite size. Physicists know that this "singularity" will have a finite size and properties It is just that we do not know and may never know what this finite size is or the properties are and it is convenient to use the mathematical term for it. There are several thoughts about what might go on but none are really accepted as a standard idea and to describe what is happening would go beyond the standard model and enter the new theories area.

This idea is probably the simplest and least controversial. Consider a simple non rotating (Swartzchild) black hole. inside, the material will continue to collapse towards this "singularity" and an event horizon (not the one that cuts the hole off from our universe) will continue to contract with it. This second event horizon is the maximum distance that matter and energy will be able to escape before being pulled back in by the gradually increasing gravitational field. This horizon will emit Hawking radiation. As it gets smaller and smaller it will get hotter and hotter. This radiation will sap the energy of the collapse and eventually stop it collapsing any further (the final size may in fact be at or below the Planck limits) but it will not be infinitely small like a mathematical point. so think of the singularity as a tiny fuzzball of incredible energy density held together by a a tiny and incredibly intense gravitational field.

Interestingly though this is what models suggest that the "quantum mechanical vacuum" is really like. The theoretical power density is something like 10 to the power 120 greater than we actually observe one of the bigger mysterious errors in our understanding of reality

I meant the object ceases to exist, but of course the matter remains ( sun atomic particles remain., but the storage of sub atomic particles seems infinite, but it is not, it could technically hold the universe in itself if all reduced to the sub atomic level ))

and I am not talking about "spinning", I am talking about vibration. everything that has energy vibrates, does it not ?

besides just stopping all the particles spinning, would be enough of any mass to disrupt it, hence it falls apart to its elementary particles.

and might also solve infinity problem in black holes.. not infinity, but might as will be, cause no way to measure all atoms in the universe....

you see there never can be a math solution to an unanswerable question. it is impossible to know exactly the total mass or weight of all the atoms in the universe, because the very people to do the observation had to be broken don to there elementary particles also, hence an unanswerable question, hence infinity..................

The object is an assemblage of matter particles (all spinning fermions) held together by the nuclear and electromagnetic forces which are properties of the particles. Removing vibration energy and cooling down does not affect these. so things do not and cannot fall apart the spin is a characteristic of the particle and cannot be changed other than by extremely high energy processes nothing like the low energy process we are talking about here

You cannot control time. Time always passes normally where "you" are. Time dilation is only seen somewhere else from where "you" are and at the distant place where the time dilation is being observed time is running perfectly normally for all the things that are there. This is one of the least well understood and accepted facts about relativity.

And if I somehow "could" cause every single one of the atoms in that marble to "stop" vibrating.

would the marble, cease to exist ?

You can't do that - there remains a quantum mechanic zero point energy; ie even once you have stopped all the vibration that can possible be stopped there is still a vibration.

Quote

in a black hole, time stops, hence vibration stops.

What happens to time in a black hole is complicated and not settled - I am not sure you can just say time stops. Black holes radiate, spin, shrink/expand etc - all things that seem to require passage of time.

Quote

and, if said object ceases to exist, could that be happening in black holes, solving the singularity problem ?

The singularity is a prediction - and many people have striven to find a way around the logical absurdity of it. Solutions will start to emerge when we have a theory that can deal with the very massive and the very small at the same time.

Quote

if the matter is reduced to its sub atomic particles, it could store almost limitless amounts of matter, not infinite, but if you consider all the matter in the universe does not take up too much space, so to speak, it seems infinite.

A neuton star is the extreme manner of storing matter at high density (the black hole is more extreme but we don't understand that). It is definitely not infinite and does not store limitless amounts of matter. You are dead right that all the matter in the Universe is not really that much when compared to the size of the universe - there is a lot of empty space!

the calculations come up as infinite for answer, because it is technically infinite, unknown forever.

there is an answer, but no one will ever know it... one true unknown forever...................

We might well one day crack the answer. The trouble is that GR cannot be used alone to probe a singularity. At the very very small scale you need to take account of quantum effects. We do not have a working theory of quantum gravity.

We can say that in some interpretations that time changes within a black hole - Penrose diagrams have the axes changed over within the event horizon; but we really cannot say with any certainty what happens. we just know that our MODELS collapse or go weird when we try to move within the event horizon.

it is impossible to know exactly the total mass or weight of all the atoms in the universe, because the very people to do the observation had to be broken do[w]n to th[eir] elementary particles also, hence an unanswerable question, hence infinity

It is true that the people doing the estimate take their own atoms into account in this calculation - but this does not create some sort of logical contradiction which prevents them from doing the calculation. In fact, it is probably the easiest and most accurate part of the calculation, since it doesn't require many guesstimates!

It's also true that the answer does not change in any measurable way if the person didn't count themselves, or indeed, if they didn't count any humans at all, or the Earth either.

Talking about observed time coming to a stop at event horizons is OK thats what you see from a distance as I have said many times before that DOES NOT mean that time stops for the object that you are looking at, it continues perfectly normally.

Actually at the center of a black hole spacetime has infinite curvature and matter is crushed to infinite density under the pull of infinite gravity. At a singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them. The laws of physics as we know them break down at a singularity, so it's not really possible to envision something with infinite density and zero volume

Don't like that NASA answer at all. In one breath they say the laws of physics break down - but also describe a situation with supposed precision. We just do not know what happens within the EH of a black hole. Hawking and Penrose showed that GR predicts a singularity - but at small scales we must take quantum effects into account (ie GR is not enough) and we do not have a theory of quantum gravity.

Simple answers like this give rise to naive questions in my mind - how does infinite gravity fall off under the inverse square rule. I can postulate a gravity for the central black hole of the milky way which would lead inexorably to the earth and sol spiralling rapidly in towards the central black hole - surely infinite gravity is "bigger" than the finite gravity i have postulated.

I think it is easier to agree that matter might be transformed - even on weaker gravity neutron stars we see a change to a degenerate form of matter

lol I didn't like NASA's answer either, but it seems every single "expert" online, has a different solution. I read 5 different opinions online at different websites, and it just seems that the situation is going to require either new math, or new physics ( ie. another law that is yet to be discovered.

I think black holes are the "recyclers" of the universe, making sure there is always fresh matter to begin again, for I believe the universe is infinite, and has always existed, and black holes provide that ability to exist forever.

I have a more fundamental question. Its said that matter crossing a black hole event horizon will be crushed into something resembling infinite density. The problem seems to me that the object that has crossed the event horizon time has stopped, therefore no change can occur, meaning the object can't collapse. It seems as whatever crossed the horizon would essentially travel forever without change in vector.

Can a non rotating (Swartzchild) black hole exist ?, all black holes originate from the collapse of a rotating star and assuming the rotational energy is conserved the singularity must shrink until its surface is rotating at c this must put a limit on the radius of the singularity.

all black holes originate from the collapse of a rotating star and assuming the rotational energy is conserved the singularity must shrink until its surface is rotating at c this must put a limit on the radius of the singularity.

There are trains of thought that say that primordial (galactic centre blacholes) might predate the stellar nurseries around then and in fact be the reason that galaxies form as they do. These black holes would not form from individual collapsing stars - but I fail to understand how they wouldn't have angular mom. Galaxies merging? - Could that lead to reduction in rotation, possibly; to a non-rotating black hole, seems very unlikely

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.